Difference between revisions of "Integrators"
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
H\left(s\right) = \frac{a}{\left(1 + s\frac{a}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_2}\right)\cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_3}\right) \cdots} | H\left(s\right) = \frac{a}{\left(1 + s\frac{a}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_2}\right)\cdot \left(1+\frac{s}{p_3}\right) \cdots} | ||
</math>|{{EquationRef|16}}}} | </math>|{{EquationRef|16}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | If we assume that <math>\omega_0 \ll p_2, p_3, \ldots</math> and <math>a \gg 1</math>, we can then rewrite the transfer function as: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{NumBlk|::|<math> | ||
+ | \begin{align} | ||
+ | \left. H\left(j\omega\right) \right|_{\omega=\omega_0} & = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} + \frac{j\omega_0}{\omega_0}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_2}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots} \\ | ||
+ | & = \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j + \frac{j\omega_0}{a\cdot p_2}\right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots} \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j \right) \cdot \left(1 + \frac{j\omega_0}{p_3}\right) + \cdots}\\ | ||
+ | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} + j + \frac{j\omega_0}{a\cdot p_3} - \frac{j\omega_0^2}{p_2\cdot p_3} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3}\right)\cdots} \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3} + j\right)\cdots} \\ | ||
+ | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_2} - \frac{\omega_0}{p_3} - \ldots \right) + j} \\ | ||
+ | & \approx \frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{a} -\sum\limits_{i=2}^N \frac{\omega_0}{p_i} \right) + j} | ||
+ | \end{align} | ||
+ | </math>|{{EquationRef|17}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | For <math>N</math> non-dominant poles. The integrator quality factor is then equal to: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{NumBlk|::|<math> | ||
+ | Q \approx \frac{1}{\frac{1}{a} -\sum\limits_{i=2}^N \frac{\omega_0}{p_i}} | ||
+ | </math>|{{EquationRef|18}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | As expected, the effect of finite gain can be cancelled out by the effect of the non-dominant poles. | ||
=== Capacitor Non-Idealities === | === Capacitor Non-Idealities === | ||
+ | For lossy capacitors, modeled in Fig. 11 as an ideal capacitor in series with a resistor, <math>R_c</math>, the integrator transfer function becomes: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{NumBlk|::|<math> | ||
+ | \begin{align} | ||
+ | H\left(s\right) = \frac{v_o}{v_i} & = -\left(R_c + \frac{1}{sC} \right)\cdot \frac{1}{R} = -\frac{1}{sRC}\cdot \left(1 + sR_c C\right) \\ | ||
+ | & = -\frac{\omega_0}{s}\cdot \left(1 + sR_c C\right) = -\frac{\omega_0}{j\omega}\cdot \left(1 + j\omega R_c C\right) \\ | ||
+ | & = -\frac{\omega_0}{j\omega}\cdot \frac{1 + \omega^2 R_c^2 C^2 }{1 - j\omega R_c C} | ||
+ | \end{align} | ||
+ | </math>|{{EquationRef|19}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The magnitude and phase response is shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Notice the phase lead introduced by the zero due to <math>R_c</math>. At <math>\omega=\omega_0</math>: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{NumBlk|::|<math> | ||
+ | \begin{align} | ||
+ | H\left(j\omega_0\right) & = -\frac{1}{j}\cdot \frac{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2 }{1 - j\omega_0 R_c C} = \frac{-\left( 1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2 \right)}{j + \omega_0 R_c C} \\ | ||
+ | & = \frac{-1}{j\frac{1}{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2} + \frac{\omega_0 R_c C}{1 + \omega_0^2 R_c^2 C^2}} | ||
+ | \end{align} | ||
+ | </math>|{{EquationRef|20}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The integrator quality factor can then be written as: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{NumBlk|::|<math> | ||
+ | Q = \frac{1}{\omega_0 R_c C} = \frac{RC}{R_c C} = \frac{R}{R_c} | ||
+ | </math>|{{EquationRef|21}}}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, a non-zero <math>R_c</math> degrades the integrator quality factor, but in typical implementations, the amplifier non-idealities will dominate. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Summary == | ||
+ | The quality factor of the integrator is reduced by: | ||
+ | * The finite gain of the amplifier, | ||
+ | * The presence of amplifier non-dominant poles, and | ||
+ | * The loss of passive reactive components, e.g. capacitors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that both the finite amplifier gain and the lossy capacitor introduces a phase lead, and the presence of non-dominant poles results in a phase lag. |
Revision as of 11:44, 2 April 2021
Contents
The Ideal Integrator
The ideal integrator, shown in Fig. 1, with symbol shown in Fig. 2, makes use of an ideal operational amplifier with , , and . The current through the resistor, , can be expressed as:
-
(1)
-
Thus, we can write the integrator output voltage, , as:
-
(2)
-
In the Laplace domain:
-
(3)
-
Or equivalently:
-
(4)
-
The magnitude and phase response of an ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. A key feature to note in ideal integrators is the fact that:
- The unity gain frequency is equal to , and
- The phase at the unity gain frequency is exactly .
Rewriting the transfer function as:
-
(5)
-
We can then define the quality factor of an ideal integrator:
-
(6)
-
Since . Fig. 5 shows a multiple-input integrator, with output voltage:
-
(7)
-
Integrator Noise
Fig. 6 shows an integrator where the output is fed back to one of its inputs, giving us:
-
(8)
-
Ignoring the noise from the amplifier, the output noise of the integrator in Fig. 6 can be expressed as:
-
(9)
-
The total integrated noise is then:
-
(10)
-
Integrator Non-Idealities
In practice, integrators are limited by the characteristics of non-ideal amplifiers: (1) finite gain at DC, and (2) non-dominant amplifier poles. Let us look at the effects of these non-idealities one at a time.
Finite Gain
The transfer function of an integrator using an amplifier with finite gain, , can be written as:
-
(11)
-
The magnitude and phase response of this non-ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Note that the integrator quality factor now becomes finite:
-
(12)
-
The phase at is then:
-
(13)
-
Thus, if is finite, will approach, but will never be equal to , resulting in a phase lead. For example, if , we get , and will result in .
Non-Dominant Poles
The transfer function of an integrator using an amplifier with infinite gain but with non-dominant poles can be expressed as:
-
(14)
-
The magnitude and phase response of this non-ideal integrator is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The phase at the unity gain frequency is then equal to:
-
(15)
-
Note that the non-dominant poles contribute to the integrator phase lag.
In a real integrator, the effects (phase lead) of the amplifier finite gain can cancel out the effects (phase lag) of the non-dominant poles! Given the transfer function of the integrator with an amplifier that has both finite gain and non-dominant poles:
-
(16)
-
If we assume that and , we can then rewrite the transfer function as:
-
(17)
-
For non-dominant poles. The integrator quality factor is then equal to:
-
(18)
-
As expected, the effect of finite gain can be cancelled out by the effect of the non-dominant poles.
Capacitor Non-Idealities
For lossy capacitors, modeled in Fig. 11 as an ideal capacitor in series with a resistor, , the integrator transfer function becomes:
-
(19)
-
The magnitude and phase response is shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Notice the phase lead introduced by the zero due to . At :
-
(20)
-
The integrator quality factor can then be written as:
-
(21)
-
Thus, a non-zero degrades the integrator quality factor, but in typical implementations, the amplifier non-idealities will dominate.
Summary
The quality factor of the integrator is reduced by:
- The finite gain of the amplifier,
- The presence of amplifier non-dominant poles, and
- The loss of passive reactive components, e.g. capacitors.
Note that both the finite amplifier gain and the lossy capacitor introduces a phase lead, and the presence of non-dominant poles results in a phase lag.